If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You must register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

In the United States, we have a severe under-incarceration problem

WASHINGTON — More than half (57 percent) of violent offenders who were released from state prison in 2016 served less than three years before their release, the Bureau of Justice Statistics announced today. About 1 in 25 violent offenders served 20 years or more before their release.

These findings are based on prisoner records from BJS's National Corrections Reporting Program and reflect 2016 releases. They are based on state prisoners' initial release after serving time for a given offense and exclude persons who had been released after serving time for an offense, returned to prison for violating community supervision and were released again.

The average time an offender served in state prison in 2016, from the date of first admission to initial release, was 2.6 years. The median amount of time served (the middle value in the range of time served, with 50 percent of offenders serving more and 50 percent serving less) was 1.3 years. Persons serving less than one year in state prison made up 40 percent of first releases in 2016.

Based on 2016 release data, the average time served before initial release by state prisoners who were sentenced for a violent offense was 4.7 years and the median time was 2.4 years. Offenders sentenced for murder or non-negligent manslaughter served an average of 15 years and a median time of 13 years in state prison before initial release. State prisoners sentenced for rape or sexual assault served an average of 6.2 years and a median time of 4.2 years before initial release.

An estimated 96 percent of violent offenders released in 2016, including 70 percent of those sentenced for murder or non-negligent manslaughter, served less than 20 years before initial release. Roughly 1 in 5 persons released in 2016 after being sentenced for rape or sexual assault served 10 or more years before initial release.

State prisoners serving time for drug offenses, including trafficking and possession, served an average of 22 months and a median time of 14 months before their initial release. About 3 in 5 offenders released after serving time for drug possession served less than one year before their initial release.

In general, state prisoners served an average of 46 percent of their maximum sentence before their first release. Violent offenders served 54 percent of their maximum sentence, property offenders served 42 percent, drug offenders served 41 percent and public order offenders served 45 percent.

Persons in state prison for rape or sexual assault served an average of 62 percent of their maximum sentence before initial release. Those in prison for drug possession served an average of 38 percent of their maximum sentence length.

We are not emptying prisons of rapists and murderers so we can lock up people who get caught with a dime bag.

On the whole, the criminal justice system is a revolving door where violent criminals are repeatedly loosed upon society where they re-offend against more victims. (Some specific areas are better about this than others)

And keep in mind, those are just the ones who get caught. Most violent crimes are not solved...meaning a suspect isn't charged, prosecuted or jailed for it. Homicide numbers are often used to represent violent crime in total, but it is not the only form of violent crime and plenty of people are maimed in "lesser" violent crimes like aggravated assault, etc. Even so, the nationwide homicide clearance rate is less than 60%.

When you factor out justifiable homicides and crimes where the perpetrator and victim were known to each other the clearance rates even for homicide are frighteningly low...meaning that the criminals who commit those crimes are only ever hassled by the police in a minority of the violent crimes they actually commit.

When odds are they won't be charged with a violent crime for committing one, and that even if they are arrested and prosecuted for one that they are likely to serve a rather paltry sentence for it...

In the most violent places in the United States, getting caught and locked up for a full ride for a crime like murder is the least likely outcome of actually committing murder. Is it any wonder, then, that those places are violent?

LE agencies are massively under-resourced, courts are massively under-resourced, and the prison system is massively under-resourced, not to mention being an ineffective mix between rehabilitation and punishment. It's neither to a committed criminal.

We are not emptying prisons of rapists and murderers so we can lock up people who get caught with a dime bag.

Who said we were?

The argument isn't that rapists and murderers are being released to make room for people busted with dime bags. It's that we're arresting and incarcerating more people with dime bags than we are violent offenders.

Maybe if we reallocated some resources from drugs and instead focused on violent crimes things could change?

Just a thought.

Then we have the issue of the drug war being a primary contributor to violence. I can't help but think there are alternative solutions overall. The question is - what social changes are necessary to eliminate addicts? Eliminate prescription opiods entirely? I think the alternative, make them OTC available and let the junkies simply die. No more Narcan, no more hospital admittances for OD'ing individuals? Harsh, but if you cut off the demanders - suppliers will burn themselves up fighting for smaller pieces of the pie. Eventually making it easier to focus on stemming the few remaining suppliers.

"P-f: I lurked for wonderful combat pistolcraft advice, but I ponied up cash for my daily dose of Dada." - Baldanders

The argument isn't that rapists and murderers are being released to make room for people busted with dime bags. It's that we're arresting and incarcerating more people with dime bags than we are violent offenders.

Maybe if we reallocated some resources from drugs and instead focused on violent crimes things could change?

Just a thought.

Then we have the issue of the drug war being a primary contributor to violence. I can't help but think there are alternative solutions overall. The question is - what social changes are necessary to eliminate addicts? Eliminate prescription opiods entirely? I think the alternative, make them OTC available and let the junkies simply die. No more Narcan, no more hospital admittances for OD'ing individuals? Harsh, but if you cut off the demanders - suppliers will burn themselves up fighting for smaller pieces of the pie. Eventually making it easier to focus on stemming the few remaining suppliers.

Banning narcan would be a wonderful first step. No consequences enables stupid behaviour.

The amount of people in prison for simple possession is very small. Of those, I'd guess they are there due to a distribution charge that was plead down.

I'd recommend "Ghettoside" to better understand the real criminal justice system. Murder is a very hard charge to get a conviction on. Selling drugs is a much easier charge to convict on. When the police have to target someone for drug distribution, who do you think they favor - that's right, murderers they can't make cases on.

The argument isn't that rapists and murderers are being released to make room for people busted with dime bags. It's that we're arresting and incarcerating more people with dime bags than we are violent offenders.

Maybe if we reallocated some resources from drugs and instead focused on violent crimes things could change?

Just a thought.

Then we have the issue of the drug war being a primary contributor to violence. I can't help but think there are alternative solutions overall. The question is - what social changes are necessary to eliminate addicts? Eliminate prescription opiods entirely? I think the alternative, make them OTC available and let the junkies simply die. No more Narcan, no more hospital admittances for OD'ing individuals? Harsh, but if you cut off the demanders - suppliers will burn themselves up fighting for smaller pieces of the pie. Eventually making it easier to focus on stemming the few remaining suppliers.

So long as peacocking idiots mumbling about drug use over repetitive bass can sell millions of records, and thereby glorify the use and 'lifestyle' associated with it, we'll never see an end to the demand.

But the rest of the logic is sound. I've known 6 people personally that went on to become junkies - and every single one of them was pretty much useless before they were full-on junkies. Becoming a junkie just elevated them from 'the do-nothing of the family that keeps begging relatives for money' to the 'family junkie that steals shit from family members and lies about everything'.
Mom's heart is usually broken about it, but siblings and other relatives usually wish they'd just disappear for good, instead of continuing to cause heartache and financial hardship for the family.

The amount of people in prison for simple possession is very small. Of those, I'd guess they are there due to a distribution charge that was plead down.

I'd recommend "Ghettoside" to better understand the real criminal justice system. Murder is a very hard charge to get a conviction on. Selling drugs is a much easier charge to convict on. When the police have to target someone for drug distribution, who do you think they favor - that's right, murderers they can't make cases on.

To illustrate this point in something shorter than book form, one can read of the tale of "Rabbit":

The argument isn't that rapists and murderers are being released to make room for people busted with dime bags. It's that we're arresting and incarcerating more people with dime bags than we are violent offenders.

Yeah, that’s bullshit.

I was recently at a conference with 500+ narcotics agents. One of the speakers asked the room if anyone had ever put someone in prison for just marijuana. One guy out of everyone raised his hand. He said the only reason his guy went to prison was because his criminal history was absolutely terrible.

In my state, and I’d imagine most others (but not all), simple possession is a misdemeanor, punishable by no more than 11/29. People don’t generally go to prison for misdemeanors. Plus, my state is a “cite and release” state. Most people, barring a few exceptions, get written a ticket for most misdemeanors and never see the inside of the county jail.

I’ve been in LE for 11 years, narcotics for 9. I’ve arrested a LOT of drug dealers. I can think of maybe 2 that actually went to state prison.The rest got probation.

Because of that, we prosecute the majority of our targets in federal court. Even then, the US Attorney’s Office will not prosecute a marijuana case unless you literally have tons of marijuana involved. The only exception is if firearms/violence is involved.

Sure, there are a lot of marijuana users in prison. But they’re not there for using marijuana.